Why did NVIDIA skip the revision of Direct X 10.01 on their 9800 GTX/GX2/GTX 260/280?

[Xion X2]

I think the crux of the issue is that DX10 really hasn't brought the "performance improvements" that Microsoft claimed it would.. at least not on a grand level. But with DX10.1, it's showing tangible benefits that have been verified by both developers and the gaming community, so there's motivation to use it as long as the hardware support is there.

[nekrosoft13]

Originally Posted by jcrox

I don't see what the big deal is. Games are still designed with DX9 as the primary API with DX10 being mainly an add-on or alternative for what amounts to a fairly small percentage of the overall gaming market. DX10 likely needs to become more mainstream before we see a real push for anything else that would amount to DX10.1 being something substantial beyond a marketing gimmick or niche that can be applied to a few games.

well said, dx10.1 will go the way of dodo

[saturnotaku]

Don't know about anyone else, but I'm starting to see a pattern here:

DirectX 7 - good
DirectX 8 - fail
DirectX 9 - good
DirectX 10 - fail (Vista's been out for almost 2 years now)

[Viral]

Originally Posted by saturnotaku

Don't know about anyone else, but I'm starting to see a pattern here:

DirectX 7 - good
DirectX 8 - fail
DirectX 9 - good
DirectX 10 - fail (Vista's been out for almost 2 years now)

And DX10.1 could have turned things around for DX10, but nVidia don't want that. YAY! We all lose!

[Blacklash]

Didn't Anand report nVidia's current gen could do some 10.1 functions if devs coded for it?

"It's useful to point out that, in spite of the fact that NVIDIA doesn't support DX10.1 and DX10 offers no caps bits, NVIDIA does enable developers to query their driver on support for a feature. This is how they can support multisample readback and any other DX10.1 feature that they chose to expose in this manner."

"Supporting DX10.1 is all or nothing, but enabling features beyond DX10 that happen to be part of DX10.1 is possible, and NVIDIA has done this for multisample readback and can do it for other things."

Source:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3334&p=7

I hope nVidia gets PhysX support in big titles that matter. After playing with various demos that include PhysX it's become clear to me how important it can be in modern games. Offloading that work from CPU to GPU can sometimes net a 2x or 3x FPS gain. Moving from 20 FPS to 40 or 60 could shape up to be very meaningful in demanding titles.

Waving grass, moving water, flying debris/objects, dynamically moving cloth or character hair are just few things that fall in its domain. Some words from nVidia on some of the things it involves-
http://www.nvidia.com/object/nvidia_physx.html

[Heinz68]

Originally Posted by jcrox

I don't see what the big deal is. Games are still designed with DX9 as the primary API with DX10 being mainly an add-on or alternative for what amounts to a fairly small percentage of the overall gaming market. DX10 likely needs to become more mainstream before we see a real push for anything else that would amount to DX10.1 being something substantial beyond a marketing gimmick or niche that can be applied to a few games.

Actually there is no need AT ALL for DX10 to become more mainstream before we see real push to DX10.1, PROVIDED it's fully supported by both ATI and NVIDIA.
The API for DX10.1 is here since Vista SP1 and it includes some improvements at the same time it doesn't make DX10 graphics cards obsolete. So again why even bother on new games with DX10 instead of DX10.1?

Originally Posted by nekrosoft13

well said, dx10.1 will go the way of dodo

n/m

Originally Posted by saturnotaku

Don't know about anyone else, but I'm starting to see a pattern here:

DirectX 7 - good
DirectX 8 - fail
DirectX 9 - good
DirectX 10 - fail (Vista's been out for almost 2 years now)

Microsoft at least partially could be blamed on the slow DX10 adaptation. The DX10 not only required new OS but for many it also required costly system upgrade. As proven MS could easily include DX10 support in Windows XP but that would make the need for Vista which was not selling like a hot cake little less important.

If DX11 is going to have the same requirements the adaptation is also going to be slow.

Originally Posted by Blacklash

Didn't Anand report nVidia's current gen could do some 10.1 functions if devs coded for it?

"It's useful to point out that, in spite of the fact that NVIDIA doesn't support DX10.1 and DX10 offers no caps bits, NVIDIA does enable developers to query their driver on support for a feature. This is how they can support multisample readback and any other DX10.1 feature that they chose to expose in this manner."

"Supporting DX10.1 is all or nothing, but enabling features beyond DX10 that happen to be part of DX10.1 is possible, and NVIDIA has done this for multisample readback and can do it for other things."

Source:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3334&p=7

Before using quotes from a article it's probably good idea to read the whole page.

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

This isn't true. There are several games in the works:

Key phrase:

in the works:


Your position that NVIDIA "screwed us all" is flawed as well. Design choices are made. NVIDIA deals with a lot more devs than ATi, as you note. If they all said "Who cares?" why would NVIDIA push this to market.

Other thin is I don't notice you saying "If only ATi would embrace PhysX, a unified standard would push more devs to incorporate" or "If only ATi would embrace stereoscopic- more monitor companies would bring out monitors" or "If only ATi would embrace CUDA, it would become industry standard".

Given the choice between what DX10.1 brings to the table and where NVIDIA spent their time, I pretty much dismiss DX10.1. Like most of the world will.

[Digital_Trans]

This is turning into a great thread! I find some of your own knowledge base to be most impressive on a technical level.

[3DBrad]

Nvidia skipped DX10.1 for the same reason game companies don't make tons of DX10 games. Consoles are DX9-esque, so games that are made for the PC are usually made for a console first as their target platform, and/or if the game is made for PC, it is targetted at older spec PCs, not new SDKs and new tools. That and DX10 is C# whereas 99% of games run on C++, and then there's another layer of PS3 you have to fiddle with.

[Xion X2]

Originally Posted by Rollo

Key phrase:

in the works:

Of course it's "in the works." It takes a good amount of time to design and develop games--especially those based on new tech.

Your position that NVIDIA "screwed us all" is flawed as well. Design choices are made. NVIDIA deals with a lot more devs than ATi, as you note. If they all said "Who cares?" why would NVIDIA push this to market.

Hardware choices are often influential on the developing community. We're seeing that with ATI at the moment. They own the minority marketshare yet some development teams are spending a wealth of their time still choosing to implement the new standard.

Other thin is I don't notice you saying "If only ATi would embrace PhysX, a unified standard would push more devs to incorporate" or "If only ATi would embrace stereoscopic- more monitor companies would bring out monitors" or "If only ATi would embrace CUDA, it would become industry standard".

Given the choice between what DX10.1 brings to the table and where NVIDIA spent their time, I pretty much dismiss DX10.1. Like most of the world will.

Perhaps it's because I'm old-fashioned, but I don't give a damn about stereoscopic or CUDA right now. I care about what benefits gaming performance most, and from what I'm hearing from developers, that's DX10.1. It's Microsoft's API.. they're the ones who built the OS, and they're touting it as a performance booster.

PhysX has potential, and it would be nice if we could reach a standardization, but that is a failed attempt by you to parallel the DX10.1 argument. Nvidia owns Ageia and the PhysX technology; ATI does not own DX10.1. DX10.1 is a technology that both are free to share on equal ground.

I mean, get real. You can't expect ATI, a competing graphics company, to quell its own ambitions for a superior physics processing and humbly take shelter under Nvidia's PhysX umbrella knowing they would always play second fiddle to them. If Nvidia really wanted partnership on this venture, then they wouldn't have bought Ageia to gobble up all the technology to themselves. Their primary focus is gaining marketshare.. just the same as ATI.

[Rollo]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

Of course it's "in the works." It takes a good amount of time to design and develop games--especially those based on new tech.

Well, then I'm accurate in my statement "there are no DX10.1 games". AFAIK, there's only a handful of RTS games coming. I don't play RTS games, why would I care about DX10.1?

Originally Posted by Xion X2

Hardware choices are often influential on the developing community. We're seeing that with ATI at the moment. They own the minority marketshare yet some development teams are spending a wealth of their time still choosing to implement the new standard.

ATi may well be paying them for additional development time to develop their own market.

Originally Posted by Xion X2

Perhaps it's because I'm old-fashioned, but I don't give a damn about stereoscopic or CUDA right now. I care about what benefits gaming performance most, and from what I'm hearing from developers, that's DX10.1. It's Microsoft's API.. they're the ones who built the OS, and they're touting it as a performance booster.

I disagree with this. I'd guess 98% of the market owns 19X12 or less monitors. We've seen ONE game where DX10.1 benefitted performance 20%, and that was with render errors, so we don't even know if that is an accurate representation of DX10.1 performance increases. With $150 cards running games well at 19X12 these days, I don't think we "need" 20% more performance more than we need stereo and CUDA. For that matter, anyone who "needs" 20% more performance can get half of it by OCing, or get much more than 20% by going multi GPU. Anyone who "needs" 20% can have it pretty cheap these days.

Originally Posted by Xion X2

PhysX has potential, and it would be nice if we could reach a standardization, but that is a failed attempt by you to parallel the DX10.1 argument. Nvidia owns Ageia and the PhysX technology; ATI does not own DX10.1. DX10.1 is a technology that both are free to share on equal ground.

I mean, get real. You can't expect ATI, a competing graphics company, to quell its own ambitions for a superior physics processing and humbly take shelter under Nvidia's PhysX umbrella knowing they would always play second fiddle to them. If Nvidia really wanted partnership on this venture, then they wouldn't have bought Ageia to gobble up all the technology to themselves. Their primary focus is gaining marketshare.. just the same as ATI.

I don't think I've "failed" to make a parallel at all-
You condemn NVIDIA for making the choice not to adopt a technology I see as meaningless, yet dismiss ATi not adopting technologies that will actually greatly change the level of immersion in games.

You have a double standard.

[Heinz68]

Originally Posted by Xion X2
PhysX has potential, and it would be nice if we could reach a standardization, but that is a failed attempt by you to parallel the DX10.1 argument. Nvidia owns Ageia and the PhysX technology; ATI does not own DX10.1. DX10.1 is a technology that both are free to share on equal ground.

I mean, get real. You can't expect ATI, a competing graphics company, to quell its own ambitions for a superior physics processing and humbly take shelter under Nvidia's PhysX umbrella knowing they would always play second fiddle to them. If Nvidia really wanted partnership on this venture, then they wouldn't have bought Ageia to gobble up all the technology to themselves. Their primary focus is gaining marketshare.. just the same as ATI.

Originally Posted by Rollo

I don't think I've "failed" to make a parallel at all-
You condemn NVIDIA for making the choice not to adopt a technology I see as meaningless, yet dismiss ATi not adopting technologies that will actually greatly change the level of immersion in games.

You have a double standard.

Xion x2 is definitely right, I don't know what's so hard to understand about it.

TheTechReport
After all, Nvidia recently signed on to the PC Gaming Alliance, whose charter involves pushing common standards like DX10.1 and increasing "the number of PCs that can run games really well."

The Ageia PhysX is STRICTY NVidia development and they're also promoting it as such. NVidia didn't make any effort to share or coordinate the development with AMD or other members of the alliance like INTEL.

So yes you failed BIG time.

Fail #2, the subject of this thread is about:
"Why did NVIDIA skip the revision of Direct X 10.01 on their 9800 GTX/GX2/GTX 260/280?"